Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A test method for pesticide tolerance in minute parasiticHymenoptera

  • Published:
Entomophaga Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In contrast to many pest species, important biological control agents have only rarely been found to be pesticide resistant. Biochemical and ecological mechanisms have been implicated, but lack of toxicological techniques suitable for the minute and fragile insects concerned may limit screening and research projects. Standard techniques are criticized, and a method utilizing controlled access to pesticidecontaining sucrose solutions is described. The method was used to test tolerance ofAphytis holoxanthus to malathion, and is suggested for screening and selection experiments with this and similar species.

Résumé

La résistance aux pesticides est devenue largement répandue chez les ravageurs, mais elle n'a été que rarement mentionnée chez leurs ennemis naturels. Des agents de lutte biologique résistants peuvent jouer un rôle important dans les programmes de Lutte Intégrée en réduisant le nombre d'espéces nécessitant une lutte chimique et en limitant l'ensemble des applications de pesticides.

Le manque de techniques toxicologiques appropriées aux insectes petits, fragiles et hautement actifs, peut limiter les projets de choix et de sélection.

Les méthodes toxicologiques disponibles ont été trouvées comme non satisfaisantes pour notre travail avecAphytis holoxanthus DeBach—(Hymenoptera : Aphelinidae), parasite du Pou de Floride,Chrysomphalus aonidum (L.) (Homoptera : Diaspididae). Une méthode alimentaire test, basée sur l'accès contrôlé à des solutions pesticides appâts, a été développée. Des concentrations progressives de malathion dans des solutions de sucrose ont été offertes dans des cellules de Munger adaptées en combinant ainsi les effets par contact et par ingestion du poison. Les cages d'élevage et de traitment, les procédés de fabrication et de manipulation ont été adaptés pour le travail avec les grands nombres d'individus requis pour des résultats statistiquement significatifs. La méthode se prête à la récupération des survivants qui pourraient être utilisés dans des expériences de multiplication et de sélection.

Les résultats obtenus avec plusieurs populations test sont représentés par le rapport entre le dosage et la mortalité dont les valeurs de la DL 50 correspondante et leur limite ont été calculées.

Le procédé décrit peut se révéler souhaitable pour des programmes de sélection avec des espèces semblables, dont beaucoup sont d'importants agents de lutte biologique et avec un large éventail de pesticides combinant les effets de contact et d'ingestion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelrahman, I.—1973. A laboratory spraying apparatus.—Austral. J. Agric. Res., 24, 135–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, A.—1977. Pesticide resistance on the increase, says U.N.E.P.—Nature, 279, 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous—1974. Recommended methods for the detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides.—F. A. O. Plant Protection Bull., 22, 103–107.

  • Barlow, F. &Hadaway, A. B.—1952. Some factors affecting the availability of contact insecticides.—Bull. Entomol. Res., 41, 91–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, B. R.—1966. Toxicity and acceptance of some pesticides fed to parasitic Hymenoptera and predatory coccinellids.—J. Econ. Entomol., 59, 1142–1149.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. W. A.—1976. Epiloque : Resistance as a factor in pesticide managment.—Proc. 15th Congr. Entomol. (Washington, D. C.), 816–824.

  • Busvine, J. R.—1971. A critical review of the techniques for testing insecticides.—Commonw. Agri. Bur., Farnham Royal, Slough, 345 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cate, J. R., Ridgway, R. L. &Lingren, P. D.—1972. Effects of systemic insecticides applied to cotton on adults of an ichneumonid parasite,Campoletis perdistinctus (Vier.).—J. Econ. Entomol., 65, 484–488.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, B. A. &Brown, A. W. A.—1975. Responses of arthropod natural enemies to insecticides.—Annnu. Rev. Entomol., 20, 285–330.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, B. A. &Morse, J. G.—1979. Research advances on pesticide resistances in natural enemies.—Entomophaga, 24, 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croft, B. A. &Strickler, K.—1983. Natural enemy resistance to pesticides: Documentation, characterization, theory, and application. In. Pest Resistance to Pesticides : Challenge and Prospects (G. P. Georghiou &T. Saito, ed.).—Plenum Press, New York, 669–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finney, D. J.—1971. Probit Analysis. 3rd. ed.—Cambridge Univ Press, London 333 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, J. M., Bogenschuetz, H., Hassan, S. A., Huang, P., Naton, E., Suter, H. &Viggiani, G.—1980. Results of a joint pesticide test programme by the working group: Pesticides and beneficial arthropods.—Entomophaga, 25, 231–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou G. P. &Mellon, R. P.—1983. Pesticide resistance in time and space. In: Pest Resistance to Pesticides: Challenge and Prospects (G. P. Georghiou &T. Saito, ed.).—Plenum Press, New York, 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georghiou, G. P. & Taylor, C. E.—1976. Pesticide resistance as an evolutionary phenomenon.—Proc. 15th Congr. Entomol. (Washington, D. C.), 759–785.

  • Hassan, S. A.—1977. Standardized techniques for testing side effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods in the laboratory.—Z. PflKrankh. PflSchutz, 84, 158–163.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helle, W.—1968. Parthenogenesis and insecticide resistance.—Meded Reijksfakult. Landbouw wet., Gent, 33, 621–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopewell, W. W. &Jackson, C.—1968. An apparatus for precise volume and flow rate control of liquid for laboratory pesticide spray application—J. Econ. Entomol. 61, 1122–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, W. M., Witt, J. M. &Erwin, W. K.—1952. Bioassay of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 hexachlorocyclohexane (lindane). Some factore influencing the contact of chemical and test insect and methods of standardizing the process.—Analyt. Chem., 24, 555–560.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoy, M. A.—1979. The potential for genetic improvement of predators for pest management programs. In. Genetics in Relation to Insect Management (M. A. Hoy & J. J. McKelvey, ed.).—Rockefeller Foundation Press, 106–115.

  • Hoy, M. A.—1983. Opportunities for genetic improvement of mites as biological control agents. In : Biological Control of Pests by Mites. (M. A. Hoy, G. L. Cunningham & L. Knutson, ed.).—Univ. Calif. Div. Agric., Publ. 3304, 141–146.

  • Hoy, M. A.—1985. Recent advances in genetics and genetic improvement of the Phytoseiidae.—Annu. Rev. Entomol., 30, 345–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munger, F., Gilmore, J. E. &Cressman, A. W.—1960. Citrus red mites resistant to demeton and ovex and their response to tedion and kelthane.—J. Econ. Entomol., 53, 384–388.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel, D. &Burgess, M.—1985. Effects of single versus combinations of insecticides on the development of resistance.—Environ. Entomol., 14, 582–589.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. G.—1957. changes in resistance to DDT inMacrocentrus ancylivorus Rohw.[Hymenoptera: Braconidae].—Can. J. Zool., 35, 629–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, J. L., Russell, R. M. & Savin, N. E.—1980. POLO, a user's guide to probit or logit analysis.—Pacific S. W. Forest and Range Expt. Sta. Gen. Tech. Rep PSW 38, 15 pp.

  • Rosen, D. &DeBach, P.—1979. Species ofAphytis of the World[Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae]—Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem &Junk, The Hague, 801 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawn, A. J.—1978. Dillerences in response to 4 organophosphates in the laboratory strains ofAphytis melinus andComperiella bifasciata from citrus groves with different pesticide histories.—M. Sc. Thesis.Univ. Calif., Riverside, 211 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickler, K. &Croft, B. A.—1982. Selection for permethrin resistance in the predatory mite,Amblyseius fallacis Garman[Acarina: Phytoseiidae].—Entomol. Exp. Appl., 31, 339–345.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ungueranu, L. &Ungueranu, E. M.—1967. Crystals of contact insecticides on different surfaces.—Parasitol., 9, 101–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization—1970. Resistance and Vector Control.—17th Rep. Expert Committee on Insecticides.—Tech. Rep. Ser., No. 443.

  • Wintringham, F. P. W.—1969. Recommended methods for the detection and measurement of resistance of agricultural pests to pesticides.—FAO Plant Protection Bull., 17, 76–82.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Facalty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University, 76100, Rehovot, Israel

    A. Havron & D. Rosen

  2. Israel Cohen Institute for Biological Control, Citrus Marketing Board, 76345, Rehovot, Israel

    Y. Rössler

Authors
  1. A. Havron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Rosen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Y. Rössler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Havron, A., Rosen, D. & Rössler, Y. A test method for pesticide tolerance in minute parasiticHymenoptera . Entomophaga 32, 83–95 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02390934

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02390934

Key-words

Mots Clefs

Search

Navigation